Donate SIGN UP

Law of succession U-turn.

Avatar Image
Gromit | 11:03 Tue 29th Apr 2008 | News
9 Answers
Plans to scrap the law that forces the oldest daughter of a monarch to make way for her younger brother in the succession have been dropped by ministers a week after being announced.

The about-turn comes as a poll today discloses overwhelming support for the change.

The rather feeble excuse for not changing the law appears to be because it is all too complicated. Seems odd, is there another reason, or is this another example of Brown's Government in disarray? =/news/2008/04/29/nroyal129.xml


1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's an irrelevance, there is so much more to focus on. Why spend effort on what is a matter of total indifference to most people?
I dont want to be rude old boy / girl - but who really cares

I shouldn't think that this is a burning issue on the minds of ' ordinary ' folk

What is of importance , is how thay are going to cope with increasing energy bills , paying their mortages etc -generally coping with life , in these unceratin economic
times - I should think
I see their point about consulting other nations; the queen is queen of Canada and St Helena as well and if Britain went alone in changing the laws you'd have the equivalent of Queen Anne II of England but King Charles III of Bermuda. I expect they just opened their mouths without engaging their brains.
loosehead - looks like we were both typing at the same time :-)
Must be a relief for any future Queen. I can't think of a job that is so unappealing.
The whole thing is ludicrous and irrelevant. They were presumably trying to introduce some sort of sexual equal opportunities within the monarchy to bring it up to date a bit.

Fair enough you might think - but the whole idea of a monarchy and its inherited right to rule is a completely anachronistic, anti equal opportunities and socially unjust concept anyway, so what the hell does it matter who within the priveleged family gets to be king first?

They probably got so far with it before they realised the absurdity of what they were trying to do.
-- answer removed --
I disagree. Although there are more 'important' issues, it shouldn't prevent other matter going on alongside, you wouldn't take from one to deprive the other!
It's high time this ridiculous inheritance along the male line was brought into line with modern times - like everything else is....and for that matter, there should be Queen and King, rather then the Queen and Prince Phillip, that's ridiculous too.
It's just part of the wider problem of having a Royal Family in the first place. Being born into a certain family entitles one to a lifestyle paid for by the tax system? What's new, except on most estates it's called 'being on the dole' and you don't get quite as much. Plus, your face isn't normally posted on official documents unless you've done something really bad.

What's bad is that people in this country are so indoctrinated that they accept we've got a Royal Family and that it won't change no matter what. That family are obviously so much better than the rest of us that they can circumvent all laws including the ones on sexual equality.

However, lets face it, every other equality law is broken by them being in existence so why not this one too?

1 to 9 of 9rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Law of succession U-turn.

Answer Question >>